Every silver lining has a cloud. On the heels of Hillary Clinton's victory in Pennsylvania, the New York Times - her hometown newspaper, which endorsed her on February 5 - weighs in on Wednesday with a stinging editorial that savages her recent campaign tactics, and hints at withdrawing its earlier endorsement:

It is past time for Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton to acknowledge that the negativity, for which she is mostly responsible, does nothing but harm to her, her opponent, her party and the 2008 election....

By staying on the attack and not engaging Mr Obama on the substance of issues like terrorism, the economy and how to organize an orderly exit from Iraq, Mrs Clinton does more than just turn off voters who don't like negative campaigning. She undercuts the rationale for her candidacy that led this page and others to support her: that she is more qualified, right now, to be president than Mr Obama.

It then concludes with this warning to the Clinton campaign:

It is getting to be time for the superdelegates to do what the Democrats had in mind with they created superdelegates: settle a bloody race that cannot be won at the ballot box. Mrs Clinton once had a big lead among the party elders, but has been steadily losing it, in large part because of her negative campaign. If she is ever to have a hope of persuading these most loyal of Democrats to come back to her side, let alone win over the larger body of voters, she has to call off the dogs.